The paper focuses on some syntactic differences between (planned) written English and
unplanned spoken English. It argues that these differences, hitherto neglected in
variationist studies, merit investigation, as they raise several major problems. Many
constructions common in unplanned speech cannot be classified by speakers as
standard or non-standard (see Comrie 1999), are misclassified by professional linguists
and are not easily assigned a constituent structure. Some analysts would exclude all
such structures, e.g. Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 11-12). Another general problem is
that constructions in the spoken variety of one language may be typologically different
from the constructions in the written variety. (See Zemskaja 1973 on conversational
Russian and Miller and Weinert 1998: 346-372 on typology.)
Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 1069) treat (1) as incorrect. It may be excluded by copyeditors (see Cameron (1995) but is common in unplanned speech (of educated
speakers) and even in writing, as in (3). Is it to be classified as a construction of
standard (British/American/etc.) English? What is its constituent structure?
Grammars of English, generative and non-generative, treat indirect questions as having
the structure of (5), with the word order of declarative clauses. A frequent structure is in
(6) – (10); the constituent order is that of yes-no questions. This can be seen as part of
a larger phenomenon whereby the speech of others is relayed by what are represented
as their actual words, often by means of a change of voice.
A third construction is exemplified in (11). It is well-suited to the conditions in which
unplanned speech is produced and to the fact that humans typically talk about other
humans. (11) makes Helen Liddell central; she is the referent of the direct object. The
speaker then conveys information about her by means of a WH clause. The listener can
open a file card for Helen Liddell (following Vallduvi 1994) and then enter the extra
information. The speaker does not have to process and produce a complex WH clause
as in (12), with a new subject NP, or in (14) with a new and quite complex subject NP.
The constituent structure of (11), whatever it is , is not one that is recognised for
standard written English. The construction is also attested in French, Italian, Latin and
New Testament Greek and is part of a pattern of structures such as left- and rightdislocation, which allow speakers to separate the establishing of an entity from the
information about that entity. The pattern raises questions about discourse vs clause
syntax and, via left-dislocation, bears on the distinction between subject-prominent and
topic-prominent languages.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
it is unreasonable what she suggests
it’s unfair what they’re doing to the union [radio discussion, BBC]
it depends on the individual person how they deal with that information [letter to The
Independent]
It has been well documented the effect “phONEday” had on both business
and domestic users [article in The Independent]
We wondered if she was going to ignore him or if she would sue him.
you were shouting at me about why had I not done something
[conversation]
…but the thought did cross my mind as to what is the rate of burglary per
hour in Edinburgh [letter to the Scotsman]
The question centres on where did this new form come from [exam script]
People are asking how well is the Painted Apple Moth operation going [New
Zealand Herald]
In the current environment, the key labour market issue is how easy is it to
get skilled workers - not how easy is it to sack them, or prevent their
getting involved in collective bargaining. [New Zealand Herald]
Everybody knows Helen Liddell how hard she works [radio discussion]
Everyone knows how hard Helen Liddell works
Only Nato forces stand between that man what he’s doing and a huge
tragedy
Only Nato forces stand between what that man is doing and a huge
tragedy
it depends on the individual person how they deal with that information
je regarde les ouvriers à quelle hauteur ils travaillent [TV interview]
Vedo Mario che esce (=Vedo Mario uscire) (Fiorentino 2001)
Viden me ut rapior? (cited in Palmer 1954)
Katamathete ta krina tou agrou, pos auksanousin (Matthew 6.28)
REFERENCES
Cameron, D. (1995) Verbal hygiene. London: Routledge
Comrie, B. (1999) Relative clauses structure and typology on the periphery of
standard English. In P. Collins and D. Lee (eds) The Clause in English. In
Honour of Rodney Huddleston. Amsterdam: John Benjamin, 81-91.
Fiorentino, G. (2001) Review of Strudsholm (1999) Relative situazionali in
italiano moderno. In Revue Romane 36/2: 316-318.
Huddleston, R. D. and Pullum, G. (2002) The Cambridge Grammar of the English
Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Miller, J. and Weinert, R. (1998) Spontaneous Spoken Language:Syntax and
Discourse. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Palmer, L.R. (1954) The Latin Language. London: Faber and Faber.
Vallduvi, E. (1994) Catalan right-detachment and information packaging.
Journal of Pragmatics 22: 573-601.
Zemskaja, E.O. (1973) Russkaja Razgovornaja Rech’. Moskva: Nauka